Health Check

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is well covered by structured data. The description adds value by clarifying it validates API reachability and key validity (auth check), which annotations cannot convey. It doesn't describe output structure in depth, but an output schema exists to cover that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence that is efficient and packed with relevant information: what it probes (reachability + key validity) and what it returns (counts + latest debrief date). No filler or redundancy. Could arguably be more structured, but it earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter liveness probe with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main behavioral questions an agent would have: what it confirms, what it returns. The only mild gap is that 'platform counts' and 'latest debrief date' are loosely specified, but given the output schema exists, this is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. Per the baseline, 0 params = score 4. The description instead focuses on what the call verifies and returns, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific purpose: liveness probe confirming API reachability and key validity. It further adds what it returns (platform counts + latest debrief date). This clearly distinguishes it from functional siblings like get_threat or search_vulnerabilities. Minor gap: 'platform counts' is vague, though the title 'Health Check' reinforces the probe purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage is as a health/liveness check, which is understandable given no parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like get_engine_status or get_platform_stats, both siblings that could overlap. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternate tool references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.